County of Olmsted v. Barber
| Decision Date | 28 November 1883 |
| Citation | 17 N.W. 473,31 Minn. 256 |
| Parties | County of Olmsted v. Lloyd Barber. County of Olmsted v. E. T. Sedgwick |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
In proceedings in the district court for Olmsted county, to enforce payment of delinquent taxes on real estate in that county, the respondents Barber and Sedgwick each appeared and interposed his answer as to certain land owned by him. The issues thus made were tried by Buckham, J., (acting for the judge of the 3rd district,) who ordered judgment for defendant in each case, and then, on request of the county attorney, certified to this court these questions: (1) (in the suit of Barber v Evans,) "properly received in evidence?" The defences made and evidence introduced are stated in the opinion.
Judgments reversed and new trials ordered.
Frank B. Kellogg, for appellant.
Lloyd Barber, for respondents, argued, inter alia, that this is not a case of re-assessment or re-levy of taxes once adjudged void. There is nothing of that kind here. If the tax was void by reason of the property not having been assessed, or because the tax was levied without any authority, it cannot be enforced, and it makes no difference that the taxes were not partially, unfairly, or unequally assessed. Barber v Evans, 27 Minn. 92; Com'rs of St. Louis County v Nettleton, 22 Minn. 356.
In the list of delinquent taxes filed with the clerk of the district court, Olmsted county, June 13, 1883, was a tract of the defendant Barber, and also tracts of the defendant Sedgwick, and opposite each was stated the amount of tax and penalty for the year 1881. Opposite Barber's was also stated an amount for the tax and interest for the years 1871 and 1872, and opposite Sedgwick's an amount for the tax and interest for the year 1871. In the proceedings to enforce the payment of taxes against real estate, the list so filed is prima facie evidence that all the provisions of law in relation to the assessment and levy of the taxes appearing thereon have been complied with. Gen. St. 1878, c. 11, § 79. This is so not only for the taxes becoming delinquent June 1st preceding the filing of the list, but for the taxes becoming delinquent in any prior year, when they are required by law to be inserted in the list. The statute requires such prior taxes to be, in certain cases, inserted in the list, and makes no rule in respect to the effect of the list as evidence as to them differing from that as to the taxes becoming delinquent in the current year.
The rule is general, applicable to all the taxes authorized to be placed upon, and placed upon, the list; and being only a rule of evidence, merely shifting the onus of proof, the legislature might apply it as well to past as to future taxes. But the cases in which taxes delinquent in prior years are required to be entered on the list being exceptional, and the authority to enter them depending on exceptional circumstances, such authority must be shown by the state as a part of its case. Those facts being shown, the case of the state is prima facie made out, and an owner resisting enforcement of the taxes must then make out his defence to them, either in whole or in part, which he may do by showing that there was no authority to levy them, or that the land is exempt, or the taxes have been paid, or that the special facts authorizing their insertion in the list did not exist, or any omissions prior to the filing of the list resulting to his prejudice.
In the case of Barber, he alleges as defences that he has paid the tax for the year 1881; that the land was not assessed by any person for the year 1870 or 1871, and no taxes were levied or assessed on it for the year 1871 or 1872; that, June 15, 1872, the state assigned to one Elder its lien for the taxes, and also assigned to him its lien for taxes, June 15, 1873 -- the liens so assigned being for the identical taxes for 1871 and 1872 entered in the list; that Elder assigned the liens to Arbuckle and Arbuckle to one John Evans; and that afterwards, in an action by Barber against Evans, in which the latter sought to have the taxes adjudged a lien on the land, it was decreed that the taxes were void and not a lien; and he claims that the questions litigated in that action cannot be litigated in these proceedings.
Sedgwick makes the same defences as Barber, and this in addition: That in 1880 he purchased the real estate of which he is owner from Barber; that upon the deed from Barber the auditor of the county, on its being presented to him for his indorsement, indorsed "taxes paid and transfer entered;" and that he, Sedgwick, purchased the land relying on that certificate.
On the trials the state proved that the tax sales for the prior years mentioned in the list were declared void, set aside, and annulled by the judgment of the district court of the county, and that the money paid by the holder of the certificate of sale, upon taking the assignment to him, was, August 1, 1881, returned to him out of the county treasury on the order of the county auditor, and the alleged taxes, as originally extended on the tax duplicate books, with accruing interest, penalties, and costs, entered in the delinquent list for 1881 with the taxes for that year.
The defendants proved that, before becoming delinquent, the tax in the list for 1881 was duly tendered to the treasurer of the county, and they paid this tax into court. They also introduced in evidence the judgment and judgment-roll, set up in the answers, and the defendant Sedgwick introduced in evidence the deed from Barber and the indorsement of the county auditor, alleged in his answer. These items of evidence were duly objected to by the plaintiff, and the decision of the court admitting them duly excepted to.
The defendants insist that there was no authority to insert in the list the taxes for the years 1871 and 1872, because, as they argue, the tender of the tax for 1881 was equivalent to payment, and consequently it did not become delinquent, and that only where there are taxes becoming delinquent for the current year, may the auditor add taxes for prior years, refunded because of the tax sale having been declared void.
Gen St. 1878, c. 11, § 97, Laws 1881, c. 10, § 19, reads: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial